i  •  Lo 


Ad.  1  b 


Reprinted  from  The  Anii.'^  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 

Science,  Philadelphia,  September,  1915. 

Publication  No.  936.  ^  .1 


a 


THE  BASIS  OF  CONSTRUCTIVE  INTERNATIONALISM 

By  W.  G.  S.  Adams, 

All  Souls  College,  Oxford,  England. 


One  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the  great  crisis  in  its 
history  through  which  the  civilized  world  is  now  passing  is  the 
complexity  and  variety  of  important  issues  which  are  at  stake. 
^But  among  the  great  issues  the  greatest  is  that  of  safeguarding 
the  development  of  international  rights.  The  war  opened  with  the 
^  denial  of  a  right  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  a  stable  international 
(J  system, — the  right  of  a  nation  to  be  heard  before  it  is  comdemned 
to  the  punishment  of  war;  the  progress  of  the  struggle  has  witnessed 
^the  deliberate  violation  of  solemn  international  treaties  and  con- 
ventions. 

j  Such  a  situation  is  a  challenge  to  civilization.  International 
l^law  no  longer  offers  any  trustworthy  security,  and  our  immediate 
duty  is  to  face  the  problem  not  of  its  superstructure  but  of  its 
^foundations.  It  is  only  too  clear  that  until  these  foundations  are 
better  laid  than  they  are  at  present,  the  particular  rights  even  of 


neutrals  are  not  safe. 


With  this  end  in  view  it  will  be  well  first  of  all  to  define  what 
f"is  the  object  of  the  international  polity.  For  the  conception  of 
fjthis  polity,  though  it  is  yet  very  imperfect  even  in  theory,  is  in- 
^>4nvolved  in  the  idea  of  international  relationships,  and  is  necessary 
^^to  their  proper  development.  The  object  of  the  international  polity 
►.-may  be  defined  as,  first,  to  secure  the  existence  of  the  individual 
^nation  states,  and  to  this  end  to  determine  their  relations  one  to 
^%nother.  So  long  as  society  continues  to  consist  of  a  number  of 
.sovereign  states  of  very  unequal  strength  without  any  collective  or 
^^international  control,  so  long  will  some  of  its  members  be  in  a  posi- 
^tion  of  insecurity  from  the  strength  of  others.  To  examine  the 
^eld  of  national  rights,  to  adjust  them  one  to  another,  and  to  prevent 
jThe  outbreak  of  a  condition  of  affairs,  viz.,  war,  which  restricts  and 
Tmaj^  put  an  end  to  international  relationships,  is  the  first  object  of 
K*^he  international  polity. 


1 


2 


The  Annals  of  the  AmericA  Academy 


The  second  object  of  the  international  polity  is  to  secure  that, 
when  war  has  broken  out,  international  agreements  regulating  the 
conduct  of  war,  in  the  interests  alike  of  the  peoples  of  belligerent 
and  of  neutral  states,  shall  be  maintained. 

Thus  far  it  may  be  said  that  the  character  of  the  international 
polity  is  simply  protective  or  preventive.  But  that  cannot  remain 
its  sole  character.  Just  as  in  Aristotle’s  famous  definition,  the 
state  comes  into  existence  to  make  the  life  of  the  individual  possible 
but  continues  to  exist  to  make  it  good,  so  the  international  polity 
comes  into  existence  to  secure  the  life  of  the  nation,  but  continues 
to  exist  to  make  nationality  good — that  is  to  realize  its  potential 
qualities  for  good.  In  other  words,  internationalism  ultimately 
will  realize  progressive  functions  by  doing  for  national  states  what 
they  cannot  as  well  do  for  themselves.  It  will  seek  to  assist  the 
mutual  development  and  cooperation  of  states,  and  to  realize  that 
harmony  of  interests  which  should  be  the  aim  of  their  political  life. 

Over  against  this  present  disruption  or  interruption  of  inter¬ 
nationalism,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  past  fifteen  years 
have  seen  a  very  remarkable  advance  in  the  development  of  in¬ 
ternational  organization.  This  is  not  the  place  to  trace  the  various 
ways  in  which  such  expression  has  been  given  to  the  spirit  of  in¬ 
ternationalism.  But  it  is  an  important  evidence  of  the  growing 
recognition  of  the  need  of  the  international  polity.  And  the  present 
world-shaking  war,  while  it  has  brought  into  ruins  the  fabric  built 
up  by  international  law  and  understanding,  maj^  yet  be  found  to 
have  advanced  the  real  cause  of  internationalism  even  more  than 
the  preceding  j^ears  of  peace.  For  it  has  demonstrated  more  plainly 
than  a  hundred  conferences  of  peace  could  have  done  the  weak¬ 
nesses  in  the  present  position  of  international  development  and 
the  need  of  rebuilding  on  firmer  foundations. 

I 

Now  what  are  the  foundations  which  have  to  be  examined? 
First  of  all,  at  the  base  of  the  whole  structure  is  the  question  of 
sanction.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  draw  attention  to  the  differ¬ 
ence  in  this  respect  between  national  and  international  law.  That 
is  well  known  to  all  students.  But  it  will  be  useful  to  analyze 
briefly  the  nature  and  necessity  of  the  sanction  in  international 
agreements. 


Constructive  Internationalism 


3 


It  would  show  a  lack  of  sense  to  fail  to  recognize  the  value 
of  the  moral  influence  as  a  sanction  of  international  agreements. 
The  moral  influence,  despite  the  events  of  the  war,  has  been  by 
no  means  a  negligible  factor,  and  the  dishonoring  of  international 
agreements  has  brought  on  the  transgressing  parties  a  loss  of  sym¬ 
pathy  and  support  which,  though  it  cannot  be  measured  in  terms 
of  men,  munitions  and  money,  has  meant  a  very  real  cost.  It 
has  alienated  the  sympathy  of  neutrals,  and  it  has  awakened  a 
burning  sense  of  wrong  in  those  who  have  directly  suffered  which 
has  strenghtened  their  resistance  and  given  confidence  of  ultimate 
victor3L  *No  faith  can  rest  on  transgression,  and  faith  is  ooe  of 
the  elements  of  victory.  There  should  be  no  room  for  doubt  that 
the  moral  sanction  is  a  real  support  to  international  agreements. 

But  more  than  the  moral  sanction  is  required.  The  moral 
sanction  should  find  its  expression  in  men,  murfltions  and  money. 
The  punishment  of  wrong-doing,  by  economic  restrictions  and  by 
armed  resistance,  is  required  to  support  the  moral  sanction.  The 
economic  boycott  is  a  powerful  weapon  in  the  modern  commercial 
and  industrial  world,  and  it  should  be  a  duty  of  those  who  are 
parties  to  international  agreements  to  use  this  weapon  against  the 
transgressor  and  to  inflict  economic  ostracism  until  expiation  has 
been  made.  But  the  economic  weapon,  powerful  as  it  is,  and  suf¬ 
ficient  as  it  ma^^  be  in  many  cases,  is  not  always  an  adequate  sanc¬ 
tion.  More  direct  methods  are  then  necessary  and  recourse  must 
be  had  to  armed  intervention  by  force.  On  the  question  of  the 
relations  of  moral  sanction  and  force  there  has  been  too  often  a 
confusion  of  thought.  Force,  it  cannot  be  too  plainly  said,  is  in 
itself  neither  moral  nor  immoral.  It  is  the  use  of  force  which  is 
right  or  wrong.  And  there  are  occasions  when,  with  the  nation 
as  with  the  individual,  to  fail  to  use  force  is  to  do  wrong.  There 
are  sins  of  omission,  and  nations  can  be  guilty  as  well  as  individuals.. 
There  is  not  one  morality  for  individuals  and  another  for  nations. 
Where  wrong  is  done  it  is  a  duty  to  stay  the  wrong-doer,  by  suasion 
if  that  can  be,  b^^  force  if  suasion  fails. 

Therefore,  behind  international  law  there  must  be  put  the  com¬ 
plete  sanction  of  moral,  economic  and  military  pressure.  Until 
such  provision  is  made  by  international  agreement  to  secure  that 
transgression  of  the  law  shall  be  punished  there  can  be  no  stable 
foundation  of  the  international  polity. 


4 


The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


Let  it  be  said,  however,  at  once,  so  that  this  matter  may  be 
clear,  that  such  a  sanction  does  not  necessarily  involve  an  inter¬ 
national  military  organization  if  by  that  is  meant  an  international 
police  or  armed  force.  For  reasons  which  need  not  be  discussed 
here,  it  seems  probable  that  it  will  be  to  the  action  of  individual  • 
nations,  controlling  and  determining  their  own  military  and  naval 
forces,  that  the  international  polity  must  look  for  the  support  of 
its  authority. 

The  first  and  for  the  present  by  far  the  most  important  ques¬ 
tion  which  has  to  be  faced  is,  therefore,  that  of  sanction,  for  the 
policy  of  ‘^constructive  internationalism”  must  be  provided  with 
an  effective  foundation  of  “sanction.” 

The  second  question  is:  what  are  the  fundamental  internatignal 
rights  for  which  the  sanction  exists?  There  has  grown  up  a  com¬ 
plex  body  of  international  rights  and  in  examining  the  problem 
before  us  it  is  important  to  distinguish  what  are  the  fundamental 
rights  which  it  is  necessary  to  secure.  The  present  war  has  enabled 
men  to  see  this  question  more  clearly,  in  that  it  has  witnessed  the 
denial  and  transgression  of  what  we  must  postulate  as  the  two 
fundamental  international  rights.  First  of  all,  there  is  the  right 
of  a  nation  to  be  heard  before  it  is  punished.  Second,  there  is  the 
right  to  the  protection  of  established  international  law.  If  the  right 
of  a  nation  to  be  heard  before  it  is  condemned  is  denied,  or  if  the 
international  agreements  upon  which  states  have  entered  are  set 
aside  by  the  act  of  an  individual  state,  then  the  basis  of  interna¬ 
tional  political  society  is  destroyed.  Let  us  consider  somewhat 
more  fully  this  very  important  question,  for  as  matters  now  stand 
we  see  that  these  foundations  have  been  shaken. 

The  first  and  fundamental  right  which  must  be  secured  to  each 
nation  is  that  it  shall  not  have  war  declared  against  it  until  the 
case  for  the  defence  has  been  heard  by  an  international  tribunal. 
Just  as  it  may  be  said  that,  where  the  individual  has  not  secured 
the  right  to  have  his  case  heard,  there  is  no  system  of  constitutional 
government,  so,  without  this  fundamental  right  of  nations,  there 
can  be  no  secure  development  of  the  international  polity.  When 
one  individual  can  take  upon  himself  the  execution  of  justice  against 
another  individual,  or  where  the  state  condemns  a  man  unheard, 
there  is  no  liberty;  so,  as  long  as  one  nation  can  refuse  to  submit 
its  dispute  to  public  inquiry  and  can  proceed  without  hindrance 


Constructive  Internationalism 


5 


to  declare  war  against  a  weaker  state,  there  can  be  no  real  inter¬ 
national  liberty.  Fundamental  as  this  right  is,  and  wide  as  is  the 
moral  acceptance  of  it  by  states,  nevertheless  the  fact  remains  that 
internationally  the  right  of  a  nation  to  have  its  case  heard  before 
war  is  levied  upon  it  has  not  yet  been  secured.  The  principle  of 
^‘obligatory  arbitration”  has  been  accepted  by  the  assembled  na¬ 
tions  at  the  Hague,  but  the  actual  treaties  of  arbitration,  save  in 
the  case  of  a  few  states,  reserve  matters  of  “national  honor,  vital 
interests,  and  independence.”  There  is  no  statutory  obligation,  if 
we  may  use  this  term,  which  binds  nations  to  submit  a  dispute  in 
a  matter  of  “vital  interest”  to  inquiry,  much  less  to  arbitration. 
Arbitration  involves  the  acceptance  of  the  judgment  of  the  court, 
and  on  matters  of  the  greatest  concern  sovereign  states  are  not 
willing  to  surrender  their  independence  of  judgment  and  action. 
Arbitration  makes  too  heavy  a  demand  on  the  mutual  confidence 
of  nations.  But  the  right  to  an  inquiry  before  judgment  is  executed 
is  something  very  different  from  arbitration.  If  an  individual  or 
a  nation  is  condemned  unheard,  that  is  the  very  negation  of  liberty. 

The  second  fundamental  right  of  a  nation  is  to  receive  the 
protection  provided  by  the  observance  of  international  agreements. 
If  in  a  society  agreements  are  not  kept,  and  if  the  breach  of  agree¬ 
ment  is  not  punished,  the  basis  of  that  society  is  destroyed.  So 
also  in  the  international  sphere  it  is  fundamental  that  agreements 
should  be  kept  and  that  their  breach  should  be  punished.  To 
admit  the  doctrine  of  national  “necessity”  as  being  above  all  and 
conditioning  all  international  agreements  is  to  destroy  international 
security.  This  is  a  matter  of  principle  on  which  there  can  be  no 
compromise. 

Such  are  the  foundations  of  the  system  of  international  rights 
and  of  the  international  polity.  What  steps  can  be  taken  to  secure 
these  rights? 

II 

A  great  advance  has  been  made  within  the  past  year  by  the 
action  of  the  present  government  of  the  United  States  in  ratifying 
with  this  country,^  with  France,  and  with  several  other  states, 
treaties  which  provide  for  the  establishment  with  each  of  these 
countries  of  a  permanent  international  commission  to  which  all 
disputes,  where  diplomacy  has  failed,  shall  be  submitted.  That 

^  November  10,  1914. 


6 


The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


step  marks  a  practical  contribution  to  the  building  up  of  the  inter¬ 
national  right  of  inquiry  which  cannot  be  too  gratefully  recognized. 
It  is  a  limited  step,  but  it  is  the  first  step,  and  it  opens  the  way  to¬ 
wards  developments  which  may  complete  and  secure  by  effective 
sanction  the  recognition  of  the  first  and  fundamental  right  of  a  nation 
to  have  its  case  heard.  Those  who  have  studied  the  history  of  inter¬ 
national  arbitration  will  recognize  the  wisdom  of  not  attempting  too 
much  at  one  time.  These  treaties  have  prepared  the  way,  and  if,  as 
we  hope,  the  method  of  procedure  which  they  have  initiated  is 
adopted  by  other  states,  there  will  grow  up  a  network  of  treaties 
which  will  greatly  facilitate  progress. 

But  it  is  no  disparagement  to  the  value  of  such  treaties  to 
say  that  they  mark  only  a  first  step.  They  go  far  to  strengthen 
the  chances  of  peaceful  settlement  of  disputes  between  particular 
nations,  yet  the  right  of  a  nation  to  have  its  case  heard  is  not  thereby 
adequately  secured.  There  are  nations  which  may  not  agree  to 
such  a  procedure,  and  the  agreement  itself  lacks  the  support  of 
an  adequate  sanction.  No  doubt  in  many  cases  the  sense  of  honor 
is  such  as  will  secure  the  strict  observance  of  the  treaty.  But  it  is 
very  desirable  that  there  should  be  behind  such  treaties,  if  they  are 
to  be  extended  into  an  effective  security  of  the  right  of  inquiry,  the 
sense  of  a  definite  and  visible  sanction.  What  then  is  the  next  step? 

•Three  years  ago  in  a  speech  of  March  13,  1911,  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  Sir  Edward  Grey  said,  in  speaking  of  the  possibility 
of  an  unreserved  treaty  of  arbitration  between  the  United  States 
and  England: 

It  is  true  that  the  two  nations  who  did  that  {i.e.  enter  upon  an  unreserved 
agreement)  might  still  be  exposed  to  attack  from  a  third  nation  who  had  not 
entered  into  such  an  agreement.  I  think  it  would  probably  lead  to  their  follow¬ 
ing  it  up  by  an  agreement  that  they  would  join  vdth  each  other  in  any  case  in 
which  one  only  had  a  quarrel  with  a  third  power  by  which  arbitration  was  re- 
fused.- 

This  is  a  noteworthy  statement.  It  was  made  with  regard  to  the 
right  of  arbitration,  and  not  to  the  much  lesser  right  of  inquiry. 
It  is  well  to  observe,  however,  that  such  a  step,  postulating  the 
system  of  separate  treaties  between  single  states,  would  involve  a 
considerable  extension  of  responsibility.  To  join  with  one  other 
state  against  any  third  party  is  a  general  obligation,  and  the  history 

2  Hansard,  Vol.  XXII. 


Constructive  Internationalism 


of  international  development  shows  us  that  individual  nations  are 
averse  to  undertaking  such  wide  risks  as  this  provision  against  third 
parties  may  involve.  A  state  if  it  were  bound  up  by  such  an  ob¬ 
ligation  might  find  itself  involved  in  a  dispute  with  some  third  state 
with  which  it  had  perfectly  good  relations.  Furthermore,  it  will 
be  seen  that  in  such  a  step  there  is  implied  the  idea  of  sanction 
expressed  in  the  term  of  both  states  ‘‘joining”  against  a  third  party. 

It  should,  however,  be  kept  in  mind  that  all  which  is  here  being 
considered  is  the  right  of  a  state  to  an  international  hearing  before 
force  is  used  against  it,  and  this  is  a  right  which  civilized  nations 
should  be  prepared  to  support. 

But  something  more  is  desirable  and  should  be  attempted  than 
can  be  satisfactorily  provided  by  treaties  between  two  individual 
states.  Has  not  the  time  come  when  all  states  which  recognize  the 
fact  that  the  right  of  inquiry  is  fundamental  should  unite  together 
to  assert  this  right  and  to  declare  that  they  will  resist  any  power 
which  refuses  to  submit  its  dispute  to  international  inquiry  before 
proceeding  to  war?  By  international  inquiry,  is  not  necessarily 
meant  a  court  mainly  representative  of  “other”  nations.  Where 
two  states  which  have  a  matter  in  dispute  agree  upon  a  court  of  y 
inquiry,  that  is  sufficient.  But  just  as  in  industrial  matters  where 
any  two  parties  at  dispute  cannot  agree  upon  an  arbitrator  the 
state  should  have  the  right  to  appoint,  so,  where  two  states  cannot 
agree  as  to  the  court  of  inquiry,  an  international  authority  must 
have  the  right  of  instituting  the  court.  What  therefore  seems  to 
be  clear  is,  that  while  it  would  mark  a  further  advance  if  any  two 
states,  such  as  the  United  States  and  England,  agree  to  support  each 
other  against  any  third  party  which  refuses  to  submit  its  dispute 
to  inquiry,  it  would  be  a  still  better  and  sounder  method  of  advance 
if  a  general  agreement  were  made  between  all  states  which  are 
prepared,  (a)  to  submit  any  dispute  among  themselves  to  inquiry,, 
and  (b)  to  support  any  member  of  this  group  against  a  third  partjr 
who  refuses  inquiry  before  hostilities. 

Such  a  general  agreement  should  be  open  to  all  states  which 
are  prepared  to  enter  upon  it.  But  if  it  is  to  be  effective  it  must 
have  behind  it  a  definite  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  signatory 
states  to  support  by  the  full  weight  of  their  resources,  moral  and 
material,  the  disregard  or  denial  of  this  fundamental  right.  A  union 
of  states  so  constituted  forms  the  best  foundation  for  the  develop- 


8 


The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


ment  of  the  international  polity.  It  provides  a  system  of  mutual 
insurance.  While  one  or  two  important  nations  must  take  the 
lead  in  such  a  policy,  we  venture  to  assert  that  it  would  win  at 
once  the  loyal  support  of  some  at  least  of  the  great  powers  and  of 
many  of  the  smaller  states.  Indeed  it  may  well  be  that  all  states 
would  sooner  or  later  agree  to  accept  this  position.  It  wmuld  be  a 
union  of  a  defensive  character.  It  would  not  be  formed  against 
any  state.  If,  however,  any  state  or  group  of  states  refused  to 
acknowledge  such  a  right,  the  ground  for  the  existence  of  such 
a  union  becomes  all  the  more  imperative.  For  it  would  reveal 
how  futile  and  how’  dangerous  the  attempt  would  be  to  build  up 
again  an  international  system  without  securing  the  foundations. 

If  such  an  agreement  then  can  be  realized,  time  may  bring 
mutual  confidence  between  the  nations  and  a  respect  for  the  judg¬ 
ments  of  the  courts  of  inquiry,  which  will  lead  to  the  adoption  of 
the  principle  of  arbitration.  But  it  may  even  be  found  that  the 
system  of  inquiry  and  conciliation  achieves  the  result  w^hich  arbi¬ 
tration  proposes  to  attain,  and  that  it  does  so  by  methods  which 
are  much  more  acceptable  to  the  nation  states  and  may  even  avoid 
miscarriage  of  justice  against  which  arbitration  itself  cannot  offer 
any  absolute  security.  For  inquiry  and  conciliation  is  a  much  more 
elastic  method  than  that  of  arbitration.  In  certain  international 
disputes,  on  matters  of  a  strictly  juridical  character,  arbitration 
has  shown  itself  to  be  the  right  and  proper  method.  But  in 
the  wider  and  more  difficult  field  of  political  relations,  the  method  of 
inquiry  and  conciliation  offers  the  soundest  and  safest  line  of 
progress. 

There  is  then  this  broad  foundation  for  constructive  inter¬ 
nationalism,  namely,  an  agreement  between  states:  (1)  that  they 
will  recognize  the  obligation  to  submit  all  disputes  between  them¬ 
selves  and  any  other  state  to  inquiry  before  declaring  hostilities, 
and  that  they  will  support  any  state  which  recognizes  this  obliga¬ 
tion  against  a  state  which  threatens  aggression  and  refuses  to  sub¬ 
mit  its  claim  to  inquiry;  (2)  that  they  will  respect  and  observe 
international  agreements  and  conventions;  and  (3)  that  they  will 
unite  to  protest  against,  and  if  protest  is  without  effect,  to  punish 
by  economic  action  or  by  armed  intervention,  the  disregard  of  such 
conventions. 


Constructive  Internationalism 


9 


III 

If  we  have  seen  aright  what  are  the  foundations  of  the  inter¬ 
national  polity,  it  may  be  profitable  to  consider  briefly  some  of  the 
developments  which  it  may  be  possible  to  build  on  such  foundations. 
For  it  is  only  as  a  fuller  vision  of  the  international  polity  reveals 
itself  to  us  that  we  can  seize  the  importance  of  the  whole  question 
of  international  development.  The  right  not  to  be  condemned  un¬ 
heard  is  a  very  real  gain  especially  to  the  weaker  states.  But 
arising  out  of  it  is  a  larger  question  which,  even  if  the  times  are 
not  yet  ripe,  it  is  none  the  less  useful  to  state  as  a  problem.  The 
end  or  purpose  of  the  international  polity  is  to  protect  the  rights 
of  states  and  to  develop  friendly  relationships  and  the  spirit  of 
mutual  help.  As  then -the  object  of  international  control  and  or¬ 
ganization  is  to  assist  the  proper  development  of  nationality  so 
it  may  come  within  the  scope  of  international  action  to  guarantee 
the  right  of  independence  which  is  the  foundation  of  national  exist¬ 
ence.  Already  in  the  case  of  Belgium,  and  of  certain  other  states, 
independence  has  been  guaranteed  by  European  treaties,  and  while 
at  the  present  it  may  seem  to  many  that  such  international  guaran¬ 
tees  have  proved  unavailing,  it  would  be  surely  a  grave  mistake  to 
think  that  the  policy  of  neutralization  has  failed.  Rightly  seen, 
the  doctrine  of  neutrality  is  a  step  in  the  direction  of  securing  peace 
for  small  states  holding  what  would  otherwise  be  a  very  exposed 
position.  This  subject  has  been  well  expounded  by  Professor 
Charles  de  Visscher,^  who  has  pointed  out  how  that  these  neutral¬ 
ized  states  have  marked  an  advance  in  the  international  organization 
with  a  view  to  peace.  Because  such  a  step  has  not  yet  realized  the 
desired  results,  it  is  no  proof  that  the  policy  is  wrong.  On  the 
contrary,  a  considerable  extension  of  the  policy  of  neutralization, 
provided  it  is  supported  by  a  sufficient  sanction,  is  a  definite  step 
towards  peace.  But,  as  Professor  de  Visscher  has  pointed  out, 
the  guarantee  of  neutrality  does  not  remove  from  the  guaranteed 
state  the  obligation  of  preparing  for  its  own  self-defence,  and  one 
of  the  conditions  which  should  accompany  an  extension  of  the  policy 
of  guaranteed  independence  is  that  the  neutralized  states  should 
assist  in  the  work  of  protecting,  not  only  their  own,  but  also  the 
independence  of  all  other  states  so  guaranteed. 

*  “The  Neutrality  of  Belgium/’  Political  Quarterly ,  Oxford,  February,  1915. 


10 


The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


This  question  at  least  deserves  to  be  asked:  should  not  the 
international  organization  undertake  to  guarantee  the  right  of  in¬ 
dependence  of  small  or  weak  states  in  a  more  definite  way  than 
has  been  hitherto  done?  No  doubt  it  has  been  a  principle  in  the 
foreign  policy  of  the  United  Kingdom  to  support  small  states,  and 
no  less  it  can  be  said  that  the  United  States  would  look  with  intense 
distrust  and  indignation  on  the  action  of  any  powerful  state  which 
threatened  the  national  existence  of  a  small  neighbor.  But  the 
time  has  come  when  it  is  important  to  see  whether  the  right  of 
nationality  cannot  be  further  strengthened  and  secured.  Such  a 
measure  would  certainly  bring  to  any  powerful  and  trusted  group 
of  states  the  friendship  and  support  of  the  smaller  states  whose 
independence  may  be  threatened.  We  have  only  to  look  at  the 
history  of  the  smaller  states  of  Europe  to  see  how  important  such 
a  question  is. 

A  second  illustration  will  serve  to  indicate  further  the  wide 
sphere  of  right  on  which  sooner  or  later  the  international  polity 
must  enter.  The  study  of  the  complex  problems  of  European  inter¬ 
national  relations  has  revealed  more  clearly  than  before  the  im¬ 
portance  of  what  may  be  called  the  right  of  “economic  access.^' 
It  is  evident  that  when  the  settlement  of  Europe  after  the  war  comes 
up  for  consideration  one  set  of  cases  which  will  present  no  little 
difficulty  is  that  of  the  possession  of  certain  seaports  which  are  of 
vital  consequence  to  different  and  it  may  be  rival  nations.  The 
ports,  for  example,  of  Danzig,  Trieste,  Salonica,  and  similarly,  the 
control  of  Constantinople  and  the  Dardanelles,  illustrate  the  diffi¬ 
culties  which  arise.  If  there  is  to  be  an  exclusive  national  posses¬ 
sion  of  such  strategic  positions,  unless  rights  of  equal  economic 
access  are  guaranteed  to  the  nations  which  are  excluded  from  these 
gateways  of  commerce,  they  will  remain  a  permanent  source  of 
friction.  So  long  as  political  interests  impede  natural  developments, 
so  long  there  will  be  unrest.  Nations  should  have  the  right  of  free 
access  to  the  world.  No  state  should  be  allowed  to  penalize  or 
differentiate  against  the  produce  of  another  nation  which  has  to 
pass  through  its  territory  on  the  way  to  other  markets.  It  is  and 
should  be  within  the  rights  of  a  sovereign  state  to  determine  the 
conditions  on  which  the  goods  of  any  state  may  or  may  not  enter 
its  territory  for  consumption,  but  to  prevent  or  even  to  penalize 
the  goods  of  a  state  passing  through  its  territory  on  the  way  to  the 


Constructive  Internationalism 


11 


markets  of  the  world  is  a  matter  which  should  be  beyond  the  com¬ 
petence  of  any  state.  The  simple  expedient  of  transit  in  bond 
should  be  guaranteed  by  international  agreement. 

‘  The  security  of  the  right  of  economic  access  will  remove  many 
particular  causes  of  friction  between  nations,  and  it  opens  the  way 
for  far-reaching  considerations.  The  function  of  the  international 
polity  is  to  secure  that  just  rights  are  conceded  and,  while  guaran¬ 
teeing  to  nations  their  independence,  to  see  that  independence  is 
not  used  to  thwart  the  natural  development  of  other  states.  If 
commercial  rights  of  access  are  granted,  the  ground  for  political 
hostility  is  at  least  greatly  minimized.  But  where  a  nation  refuses 
cooperation  and  controls  a  potential  access  which  it  does  not  use, 
there  is  a  natural  grievance  which  sooner  or  later  will  prove  to  be  a 
danger.  It  is  in  this  respect  that  international  control  can  come  in 
to  arbitrate  between  powers,  to  secure  that  there  is  the  proper  give 
and  take,  to  distinguish  between  what  can  and  cannot  be  fairly 
granted,  and  to  seek  to  develop  the  mutual  interests  of  states. 

And  there  is  a  still  wider  problem  connected  with  these  eco¬ 
nomic  rights.  So  long  as  there  were  fresh  lands  to  occupy,  the 
world  was  in  a  stage  of  development  in  which  national  rights  of 
occupation  were  admitted.  But  we  have  reached  the  stage  when 
all  the  available  lands  have  been  mapped  out.  Wherever  then 
there  are  lands  occupied,  but  not  developed,  there  will  be  a  growing 
pressure  against  such  mere  rights  of  occupation.  More  and  more 
it  will  be  seen  that  only  effective  use  will  justify  the  claim  of  occu¬ 
pation.  Moreover,  it  is  evident  that  just  as  in  the  sphere  of  the 
rights  of  individual  property  important  modifications  are  being 
made  conditioning  and  controlling  these  rights,  so  in  the  sphere  of 
the  colonies  and  protectorates  which  nations  have  acquired  there 
must  enter  an  element  of  international  right  which  has  not  been 
hitherto  pressed.  No  nation  can  in  these  days  seek  to  monopolize 
for  itself  large  and  important  tracts  of  the  world  to  the  exclusion 
of  other  nations.  We  are  coming  to  a  parting  of  the  ways  in  which, 
if  there  is  not  to  be  a  development  of  equal  rights  for  all,  we  shall 
be  faced  with  the  situation  of  the  haves”  and  the  ‘‘have-nots” 
among  the  nations.  These  are  great  problems  on  which  it  is  not 
possible  to  enter  here,  but  they  are  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of 
indicating  the  sphere  of  the  international  polity,  and  of  showing 


12 


The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


how  vital  it  is  that  the  first  steps  in  the  foundation  of  that  polity 
should  be  wisely  and  firmly  laid. 

We  are  indeed  as  yet  only  in  the  first  stage  of  the  developments 
of  this  greater  polity.  But  every  development  in  international 
relationships,  in  international  law,  and  in  public  international  opin¬ 
ion  is  a  mark  of  the  presence  of  the  international  state.  And  on 
its  progress  depends  the  real  guarantee  for  peace.  For  it  is  only 
by  the  progress  of  constructive  ideas  of  international  right  that  the 
permanent  security  of  national  rights  is  to  be  found  and  that  the 
way  of  peace  among  nations  can  be  broadened  and  strengthened. 
As  society  advances  in  its  conception  and  realization  of  interna¬ 
tional  relationships,  as  the  international  polity  becomes  clearer  to 
men’s  view,  so  is  the  hope  of  peace  increased.  With  each  wider 
and  higher  stage  of  political  organization  peace  is  secured  within 
the  new  polity;  and  if  within  the  polity  itself  war  may  break  out, 
that  internal  survival  of  recourse  to  armed  strife  becomes  more 
and  more  rare  in  the  history  of  men.  The  realization  of  a  bond  of 
union — be  it  the  full  sovereignty  of  the  national  state,  be  it  the 
single  link  of  a  customs  union  binding  a  group  of  national  states — 
is  a  great  earnest  of  mutual  peace  for  the  members  of  that  state  or 
union.  There  is  no  secure  guarantee  of  peace  short  of  the  inter¬ 
national  polity.  We  need,  therefore,  to  postulate  as  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  international  relations  the  idea  of  the  international  polity 
or  international  state,  however  imperfect  even  in  theory  this  con¬ 
ception  may  be.  If  this  is  not  done  we  fall  into  views  based  on 
what  is  a  narrow,  selfish,  and  dangerous  nationalism.  Every  nation 
should  be  the  guardian  of  international  rights,  and  one  of  its  most 
sacred  duties  should  be  to  adjust  its  nationalism  to  these  inter¬ 
national  rights.  Today,  the  public,  political  mind  has  been  awakened 
as  never  before  to  the  gravity  of  these  problems.  The  witness 
of  the  breakdown  of  international  agreements  and  of  the  inad¬ 
equacy  of  international  sanctions  has  led  to  the  asking  of  questions 
which  are  a  necessary  preliminary  to  the  growth  of  a  more  stable 
and  effective  internationalism.  For  this  reason  in  the  very  failure, 
as  it  may  seem,  of  international  control  up  to  the  present,  there  is 
a  hope  for  the  future  of  seeing  more  clearly  what  are  those  steps 
which  must  be  taken  if  international  control  is  to  become  real  and 
effective.  The  very  existence  of  this  widespread  emergence  of 
inquir}^  is  a  political  psychological  factor  of  great  importance.  For 


Constructive  Internationalism 


13 


it  is  well  to  recognize  from  the  outset  that  in  the  field  of  international 
development  the  part  which  public  opinion  has  to  play  is  one  of 
the  greatest  significance.  The  problems  of  international  right  and 
of  international  control  are,  in  their  most  important  aspects,  ques¬ 
tions  of  a  simple  but  fundamental  character.  They  are  matters 
not  of  the  intricacy  which  diplomacy  presents,  but  issues  which, 
because  they  are  so  deep  and  fundamental,  appeal  straightway  to 
the  ordinary  citizen.  International  law  which  has  been  a  study  of 
the  Chancellery  and  the  Academy,  has  become  a  question  of  the 
market-place.  Not  that  the  workman  or  the  man  of  business  ex¬ 
pects  or  desires  to  master  the  intricacies  of  the  questions  which 
international  lawyers  and  diplomatists  have  elaborated,  but  simple 
fundamental  issues  of  right  have  been  raised  which  awaken  in  all 
who  have  developed  the  civic  sense  an  interest  and  a  demand  for 
judgment  such'  as  has  not  existed  before.  Questions  of  interna¬ 
tional  right,  because  of  their  gravity  and  urgency,  have  become  to 
us  real  and  present. 

There  is  now,  therefore,  an  opportunity  as  there  has  never 
been  before  of  making  progress  towards  a  constructive  interna¬ 
tionalism  which  will  be  the  best  guarantee  of  peace.  But  it  will  re¬ 
quire  strong  and  wise  leadership.  If  the  United  States  and  England 
are  prepared  to  step  out  boldly  in  the  cause  of  international  peace 
there  is  a  good  hope  that  many  other  states,  great  and  small,  will 
follow  their  lead.  The  opportunity  should  not  be  lost.  The  first 
step  is  to  secure  that  as  many  states  as  possible  do  agree  to  submit 
their  disputes  one  with  another  to  inquiry  and  to  forswear  hostili¬ 
ties  until  a  report  on  the  causes  of  dispute  has  been  received..  Sec¬ 
ondly,  this  union  of  states  should  undertake  mutually  to  guarantee 
each  member  of  the  union  against  any  third  state  which  has  re¬ 
course  to  hostilities  before  submitting  its  dispute  to  inquiry  by  an 
international  court.  All  treaties  made  by  states  which  enter  such 
a  union  which  are  inconsistent  with  these  conditions  should  be 
denounced  or  modified  so  as  to  make  them  compatible  with  the 
principles  on  which  this  union  of  states  is  based.  Third,  this  union 
of  states  should  uphold  with  all  its  resources,  material  and  moral, 
the  security  of  international  agreements. 


% 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  059092996 


